9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of revision against an order granting bail by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. Whether an order granting bail can be termed as an interlocutory order. 3. Competency of the revisional court to cancel an order of bail. 4. Justifiability of granting stay of the bail order. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash an order staying the operation of a bail order granted by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The argument raised was that no revision is maintainable against a bail order by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Reference was made to a case where a bail order by an Addl. Sessions Judge was quashed, but only a direction for expediting the trial was given. Another case highlighted by the petitioner emphasized that orders substantially affecting the rights of the accused are not interlocutory and can be subject to revision. 2. The crucial question arose whether an order granting bail can be considered an interlocutory order. The impact of a bail order on the rights of both the prosecuting authority and the accused was deliberated upon. The petitioner cited a case where bail was canceled due to the accused flouting bail conditions, leading to the understanding that not all bail orders are interlocutory. A Bombay High Court case was referenced to differentiate between interlocutory bail orders and those that may need to be varied or canceled due to supervening circumstances. 3. The judgment discussed the competency of a revisional court to cancel a bail order that is deemed unjust, illegal, or results in a gross miscarriage of justice. A case involving an accused foreign national charged with smuggling gold was cited to illustrate the appropriateness of refusing bail in serious cases. The court emphasized that a revisional court has the authority to cancel a bail order if it is considered to be improper from the outset. 4. Ultimately, the court opined that the revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge was competent, and the stay granted on the bail order was justified. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the revision was valid, and the stay order by the Addl. Sessions Judge was well-founded based on the circumstances presented.
|
